Ah, I think I get you - you're understanding it as meaning harmony between the two positions. Is that correct?I didn't think of that meaning. I was thinking it meant harmony between the different people holding the two positions.If you do mean like I think you mean, do you not find the phrase 'harmony between the two' slightly wrong? Doesn't it sound more like it's refering to two separate people?

Ah, I think I get you - you're understanding it as meaning harmony between the two positions. Is that correct?I didn't think of that meaning. I was thinking it meant harmony between the different people holding the two positions.If you do mean like I think you mean, do you not find the phrase 'harmony between the two' slightly wrong? Doesn't it sound more like it's refering to two separate people?

well, isn't everything "slightly wrong" when using symbolism?...just like in your own interpretation where the priest sitting on a throne is not literal but rather symbolizes that it is referring to the High Priest.

so there is a little play in both our interpretations: your interpretation takes the two people literally as two separate people while leaving "sitting on a throne" symbolic...my interpretation takes "sitting on a throne" literal while leaving the two separate people symbolic.

But, if we ignore the slight "errors" involved in both our uses of symbolism, we're still left with the fact that the only other reference to a priest and a throne was the Genesis' Melchizedek

« Last Edit: February 03, 2009, 11:46:11 am by jmfcst »

Logged

Do not fight with one another over my banning. I've enjoyed the time I have spent with all of you, but the time really has come for me to leave. It is what I want.

Judaism seems to hold that the righteous of all origins will convert to Judaism at the gate of Heaven because such will be the nature of the righteous. God is merciful enough to recognize that those who had no opportunity to be Jews are not at fault for that. Judaism is the reward for righteousness, and someone like Raoul Wallenberg is in Heaven and is a Jew. Would it be fair to send a righteous person where the Nazis are instead of with those that he tried to rescue?

The evil people of all origins have no chance at Heaven, even if they were devout Jews on the surface. Their anti-human deeds are abominations before God, and the unrighteous could never appreciate Heaven, anyway. Out of sight and out of mind, so there is no chance of a Jew in Heaven -- that includes Sir Winston Schulberg (originally Churchill) or the former Christian X of Denmark (who goes under a different name, for obvious reasons) -- having the questionable pleasure of watching any tortures inflicted upon Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels, or the like.

Such does not hold for most of Christianity or Islam. Suppose that a righteous Hindu sacrificed his life to save multitudes of Christians or Muslims from horrific death. Would Christianity of Islam have Heaven awaiting him? That's not so clear, and according to some theological interpretations the consequence of believing in the wrong gods is eternal damnation. But note well that Christian doctrine holds that a person of utter evil who repents on the threat of death can get cheap grace that might not be available to someone whose chance ended when some SS "soldier" released Zyklon-B pellets into a gas chamber. Some Khmer Rouge mass-murderer actually converted to Christianity before he went on trial and contended that he would go to Heaven because of his resolute new faith.

Because of my Christian background, I have used the threat of Hell in some arguments, but only in extreme cases, as with a neo-Nazi or a Stalinist: "Do you really want to go where the Nazis/Stalinists are?" Any place full of Nazis or Stalinists would be Hellish, as would a place full of thieves, addicts, vandals, and rapists. I must ask this: can a Just and Loving God forgive believing in Him the wrong way, believing in the wrong set of supernatural realities, accepting the wrong Prophets or Savior, or believing in nothing? I would think so.

I think that the promise of Judaism of salvation to the Righteous of all nations is far more generous than any other that can be associated with any other tradition. I think that it is also the best that humanity can hope for, and at least as good as any.

You are correct that Jews believe that the righteous of all nations will merit Heaven, but I don't think you are right in saying they will 'convert' to Judaism.You have to remember there is a big difference between (Orthodox) Judaism and most other religions: Orthodox Jews believe that Judaism is not just a religion, rather Jews are Jews by birth, and are Jews whether they want to be or not, whether they believe in Judaism or not. Or even whether they are saints or the biggest mass-murderers. This explains the belief that Heaven is not limited to Jews and Hell is not limited to Non-Jews.The 'path to salvation' according to Judaism is not being Jewish, it is being righteous. This is also why Judaism does not encourage conversion. If you go to a Rabbi and ask to convert, he'll tell you to not bother, but just live your life as a good person.

“They cheated us again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting us with completed facts. That’s the way it was with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told us the same thing: 'Well, this doesn't concern you.'" -Vladimir Putin

The Talmud specifically defines all who are not Jews as non-human animals, and specifically dehumanizes Gentiles as not being descendants of Adam. Here are some of the Talmud passages which relate to this topic.

Kerithoth 6b: Uses of Oil of Anointing. "Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over gentiles (goyim) or the dead, he is not guilty. The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: "Upon the flesh of man (Adam), shall it not be poured (Exodus 30:32]); and cattle and vessels are not man (Adam).

"Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not a man (Adam). But why is one exempt in the case of gentiles (goyim); are they not in the category of man (Adam)? No, it is written: 'And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are man" (Adam); [Ezekiel 34:31]: Ye are called man (Adam) but gentiles (goyim) are not called man (Adam)."

In the preceding passage, the rabbis are discussing the portion of the Mosaic law which forbids applying the holy oil to men.

The Talmud states that it is not a sin to apply the holy oil to Gentiles, because Gentiles are not human beings (i.e. are not of Adam).

Another example from tractate Yebamoth 61a: "It was taught: And so did R. Simeon ben Yohai state (61a) that the graves of gentiles (goyim) do not impart levitical uncleanness by an ohel [standing or bending over a grave], for it is said, 'And ye my sheep the sheep of my pasture, are men (Adam), [Ezekiel 34:31]; you are called men (Adam) but the idolaters are not called men (Adam)."

The Old Testament Mosaic law states that touching a human corpse or the grave of a human imparts uncleanness to those who touch it. But the Talmud teaches that if a Jew touches the grave of a Gentile, the Jew is not rendered unclean, since Gentiles are not human (not of Adam).

From Baba Mezia 114b: ""A Jewish priest was standing in a graveyard. When asked why he was standing there in apparent violation of the Mosaic law, he replied that it was permissible, since the law only prohibits Jews from coming into contact with the graves of humans (Adamites), and he was standing in a gentile graveyard. For it has been taught by Rabbi Simon ben Yohai: 'The graves of gentiles [goyim] do not defile. For it is written, 'And ye my flock, the flock of my pastures, are men (Adam)' (Ezekiel 34:31); only ye are designated men (Adam)."

Ezekiel 34:31 is the alleged Biblical proof text repeatedly cited in the preceding three Talmud passages. But Ezekiel 34:31 does not in fact support the Talmudic notion that only Israelites are human. What these rabbinical, anti-Gentile racists and ideologues have done in asserting the preceding absurdities about Gentiles is distort an Old Testament passage in order to justify their bigotry.

In Berakoth 58a the Talmud uses Ezekiel 23:20 as proof of the sub-human status of gentiles. It also teaches that anyone (even a Jewish man) who reveals this Talmudic teaching about non-Jews deserves death, since revealing it makes Gentiles wrathful and causes the repression of Judaism.

The Talmudic citation of this scripture from Ezekiel as a "proof-text" is specious, since the passage does not prove that Gentiles are animals. The passage from Ezekiel only says that some Egyptians had large genital organs and copious emissions. This does not in any way prove or even connote that the Egyptians being referred to in the Bible were considered animals. Once again, the Talmud has falsified the Bible by means of distorted interpretation.

The reason this sounds funky is because of the semantics that occur when writing in the original hebrew/aramaic.

The Talmud is not saying non-Jews (Goyim) are not humans, nor is it saying that they shouldn't be considered as such. However, there are different ways of saying man in hebrew. In this case, the Talmud is saying that in cases when the term "Adam" is used to describe man in scripture, it is in reference to Jews, as is extrapolated by the similar use in the verse from Ezekiel. This simply means that, because there was a case when Adam could only have been referring to Jews, we bring the term to specifically refer to Jews.

To sum up, Jews are referred to as "Adam" while non-Jews are referred to using different language meaning the same thing. It is difficult to tell because of the translation though. I hope this clears things up.

Purple State is 100% right. I was about to post the exact same thing till I saw he got here first. I've studied the Talmud for years, and it is a very common sort of analysis used with hundreds of words, i.e. to say that the choice of a certain word to describe something only refers to a limited subset of the full meaning of the word. In this case the Talmud is saying that the Hebrew word "Adam", although in translation is referring to any "man", is used in the Torah to refer only to Jews. Other words, when used, for example "Enosh", refer to any man, even non-Jews.

I'd just like to point out the utter stupidity of websites like the one you bring complaining about the Talmud. Firstly, basically all problems like this can be explained easily by anyone with a true knowledge of the talmud, and secondly, the Talmud was written thousands of years ago, and even if all the complaints they make are true, was still far ahead in matters of race, sex etc. then was common at the time!

I'd just like to point out the utter stupidity of websites like the one you bring complaining about the Talmud. Firstly, basically all problems like this can be explained easily by anyone with a true knowledge of the talmud, and secondly, the Talmud was written thousands of years ago, and even if all the complaints they make are true, was still far ahead in matters of race, sex etc. then was common at the time!

Happy Shavuot tonight. While I don't plan on staying up all night learning, I hope those that do enjoy their night and the rest of the holiday.

you're supposed to pull an all-nighter to celebrate?

Logged

“They cheated us again and again, made decisions behind our back, presenting us with completed facts. That’s the way it was with the expansion of NATO in the East, with the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They always told us the same thing: 'Well, this doesn't concern you.'" -Vladimir Putin